Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the
symbol in each box.

Welcome to Am I Infected

Welcome to the "Am I Infected?" POZ forum.

New members -- those who have posted three or fewer messages -- are permitted to post questions and responses, free of charge (make them count!). Ongoing participation in the "Am I Infected?" forum -- posting more than three questions or responses -- requires a paid subscription.

A seven-day subscription is $9.99, a 30-day subscription is $14.99 and a 90-day subscription is $24.99.

Anyone who needs to post more than three messages in the "Am I Infected?" forum -- including past, present and future POZ Forums members -- will need to subscribe, with secure payments made via PayPal.

There will be no charge to continue reading threads in the "Am I Infected?" forum, nor will there be a charge for participating in any of the Main Forums; Meds, Mind, Body & Benefits; and Off Topic Forums. Similarly, all POZ pages, including our "HIV Transmission and Risks" and "Am I Infected? (A Guide to Testing for HIV)" basics, will remain accessible to all.

NOTE: HIV testing questions will still need to be posted in the "Am I Infected?" forum; attempts to post HIV symptoms or testing questions in any other forums will be considered violations of our rules of membership and subject to time-outs and permanent bans.

To learn how to upgrade your Forums account to participate beyond three posts in the "Am I Infected?" Forum, please click here.

Thank you for your understanding and future support of the best online support service for people living with, affected by and at risk for HIV.

Author
Topic: I couldn't take it for what it was... (Read 15567 times)

Good morning everyone, and good to meet you all! I was wondering if I could get some help from you all to solve a huge problem that's plagued my life. I've done a lot of stupid things in my life. Slept with a lot of people (some CSW's). I used protection 99% of the time. The bottom line is I met a new girl and we've been dating for 3 years now. Believe it or not, when we met, she was till a virgin! Anyhow, I've been playing it safe with her, we never did anything but kiss - she wants to wait till marriage and I totally 200% respect that all the way. With that said, we are supposed to get married in June. I've never ever touched drugs of any kind (so rule out IV use). In Oct. 2007 I went in to get a rapid test done...it was negative -> Oraquick Oral Advance. I went back in on January 2008 -> took the same test again, negative however my finger kinda barely touched the tip of the testing swab because I was trying to hold my lips. Anyhow, let me put this in perspective.

2 Negative Oraquick Oral Advance tests

2001 - Unprotected

2002 - 2005 (numerous partners including CSW's)

Oct 2007 - Jan 2008 -> Two negative tests

Am I required to take a WB or should I find a clinic that offers the Fingerprick version? Am I safe to tie the knot?

I'm not really seeing what your problem is...unless you're worried that your old wild days are gonna come back somehow to bite ya. You have two negative results, and if you've really abstained during these last three years those should stand as conclusive - negative.

I meant false negative. Also, I was reading up under the "just tested poz" section, and back in 2001, I came down with what was thought to be EBV...I'm guessing, I couldn't have seroconverted then if my negative results persist 7 years later...right?

Sorry, I just had to chime in on one last thing. Lately I've been suffering from diarrhea, a small case of what looks to be folliculitus, stomach pain, eye twitches and eye floaters. Honestly, I just want to make sure I am HIV (-). Would you guys recommend add'l testing? Be safe, stay safe and most importantly, stay well. Thanks for all of the help and support.

Throughout your life in the coming years your body is going to do all sorts of things. That doesn't mean HIV is the issue although that niggling and unfounded fear seems to be where your head is going these days. If you have troubling symptoms, see your doc as Matty said.

First off, I'm getting a blood test for a job I'm applying to - I don't know if they'll check for HIV or what not but my negative tests 4 & 6 years post protected CSW/unprotected GF exposures are said to be conclusive and definitive - however given the circumstances of how each individuals immune system works, if I were to take a blood test as opposed to an oral test that I've been taking, should I expect to see different results? I wish I would have been more 'aware' of HIV risks and tested 3 and 6 months after exposure as opposed to 4 and 6 years for my first ever test.

Second, I'm caught in a dilemma...I'm not trying to stir up an issue but just need some clarification. If an individual (we'll assume a male in this case as the insertive partner) has an exposed risk (say unprotected vaginal sex) with 1 woman of unknown status, we advise to test at 13 weeks for a definitive and conclusive result. However, if this same male were to write in stating he had intercourse (unprotected vaginal) who WAS HIV + then it is strongly advised to test at 3 and 6 months. This, given the fact that we now KNOW she is indeed infected. Now having intercourse with any woman of unknown risk, isn't it the same as assuming she's 'positive'? Otherwise, wouldn't it defeat the purpose to test unless we were 100% sure that she in fact IS positive and test till 6 months? I'm just puzzled, that's all.

EVERY risk assessment handed down from approved responders on this site pre-supposes that the object of your encounter is hiv positive. There is no such sliding scale of risk. A 13 week post-exposure negative test result is conclusive here.

Furthermore, any FDA approved test (Home or otherwise) is conclusive at 13 weeks.

My question at this point is: Given that I'm way outside of the window period, am I in trouble? According to http://californiastd.com/wst_page10.html his method is 100% accurate using HIV pooling. I don't want to fly down to see this guy if I don't have to. Again, I'm getting married and have not had any other exposures since 2005. Am I in the clear? The current window period being 3 months (and 6 according to others), am I at a disadvantage? I'm scared that my body stopped producing antibodies so the tests keep coming back negative. To my recollection, after my exposures in 2005, I've NEVER even had a cold let alone symptoms of any sort, except recently when I started thinking I'm HIV +. CAN I GET MARRIED!!?? I don't want to keep testing. I'm tired. I'm donating a good chunk of change to Dr.Bob's AIDS foundation and a few others.

How many times do you have to be told to stay in one thread? I've merged your new thread into your original thread - where you should post all your additional thoughts or questions. It helps us to help you when you keep all your additional thoughts or questions in one thread.

If you need help finding your thread when you come here, click on the "Show own posts" link under your name in the left-hand column of any forum page.

Please also read through the Welcome Thread so you can familiarize yourself with our Forum Posting Guidelines. Thank you for your cooperation.

When you read those posting guidelines, make sure you take notice of this one:

Quote

Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to a four week Time Out (a temporary ban from the Forums). If you continue to post excessively after one Time Out, you may be given a second Time Out which will last eight weeks. There is no third Time Out - it is a permanent ban. The purpose of a Time Out is to encourage you to seek the face-to-face help we cannot provide on this forum.

We've already told you that you are hiv negative, conclusively so. If you cannot accept your negative status, then you need to seek counseling. We cannot help you with that here.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I just don't get it . I'm sorry to keep posting questions but from the "Just Tested Positive" side of the forum, there are many instances when individuals tested negative up until even the 6th month then suddenly, they went in for blood work and were found to be HIV +ve. Can anyone explain this? I just got back from a physical today, the doctor offered to do a full STD screening which included an ELISA/WB. I've already had 3, YES 3 negative HIV tests out to 3 1/2 years post protected and 7 post unprotected. My concern at this point is, that I've tested too late in my life. Do you guys think that if I officially tested POZ in the summer of 2001, then now being the summer of 2008, then the 3 tests would come up positive? I'm so scared, I don't want the Doc to do the STD panel on me unless I'm 100% sure that I can rely on these antibody tests. (2) NEGATIVE ORAQUICK ORAL ADVANCE, (1) UNI-GOLD RECOMBIGEN BLOOD **NEGATIVE**. These were the ONLY 3 HIV TESTS I'VE EVER HAD IN MY LIFE.

P.S. Should I get a CD4 count? VL scan? PCR? NAT? WB? I hate to keep bothering you guys but I just want to make sure that my fiance' doesn't catch anything and ESPECIALLY *knock on wood* my future children.

P.S. Should I get a CD4 count? VL scan? PCR? NAT? WB? I hate to keep bothering you guys but I just want to make sure that my fiance' doesn't catch anything and ESPECIALLY *knock on wood* my future children.

No, no, no, no and certainly not.

You are conclusively negative unless there has been an unprotected vaginal/anal encounter within the last few months about which you've avoided discussion.

People who have recently been diagnosed as HIV+ go through various mental/emotional states (not dissimilar to the grief process, actually). Not being in such a position, your take on their testimonies, their confessions, their denials and their truths as they believe them is literal: it's essentially impossible for you to be objective or pragmatic when reading them.

I'd suggest, for your own well-being and for the future of your relationship that you refrain from visiting the other fora of AIDSmeds. Visiting other, less well-moderated and less science-based websites for information regarding the hypothetical transmission of HIV is, in my opinion, even more of a mistake.

I just don't get it . I'm sorry to keep posting questions but from the "Just Tested Positive" side of the forum, there are many instances when individuals tested negative up until even the 6th month then suddenly, they went in for blood work and were found to be HIV +ve. Can anyone explain this?

Yes - those people have had a risky encounter since their last test - or during the window period of their last test. It's as simple as that. They might not always admit or mention it, but they have. A test THREE MONTHS past any risk is conclusive.

You mention you are getting married - the pair of you need to test for all STIs before you stop using condoms.

You need to be using condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, every time, no exceptions until such time as you are in a securely monogamous relationship where you have both tested for ALL sexually transmitted infections together. To agree to have unprotected intercourse is to consent to the possibility of being infected with an STI. Sex with a condom lasts only a matter of minutes, but hiv is forever.

Have a look through all three condom and lube links in my signature line so you can use condoms with confidence.

Anyone who is sexually active should be having a full sexual health care check-up, including but not limited to hiv testing, at least once a year and more often if unprotected intercourse occurs.

If you aren't already having regular, routine check-ups, now is the time to start. As long as you make sure condoms are being used for intercourse, you can fully expect your routine hiv tests to return with negative results. Don't forget to always get checked for all the other sexually transmitted infections as well, because they are MUCH easier to transmit than hiv.

You're still under a time out warning. You are conclusively hiv negative, regardless of what you read in other forums or on other websites. You do NOT have hiv.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Question to Ann, Andy & RapidRod...I know I keep bringing this issue back up - but I'm not really concerned for myself. I love my girlfriend more than anything in the world. She truly does mean the world to me and I love her. Prior to meeting her, as you all know, I had some stupid encounters with other women as well as some CSW's. I never really went into detail to explain to her my past, with that said, we've only had unprotected oral and very minimal kissing here and there. We're both students so we don't see each other too often, but with that said, we do in deed plan on getting married. In addition, I'm her only and first ever boyfriend so she's ultra super duper clean - no std's. The bottom line is, we plan on having unprotected sex because she wants to get on the pill - it'll help with her periods and she thinks it's the right time in our relationship.....So, as you all know, THIS is why I need a definitive answer. There is no room for error. After my encounters in the past, I have never ever had any symptoms (or that I can recall) after incidences. My first ever girlfriend back in 2001, we had unprotected sex for about 1 year (almost everyday). I was her first, she was my first. Currently she's married and is extremely healthy, so i doubt i could have caught anything from her. Since then, it's been the usual one night stands, a couple of other girlfriends & 3 CSW'S (everything after 2001 WAS PROTECTED). Though the CSW's provided the condoms, I didn't see where they got them from nor remember them opening the package, however I do remember using a condom and never remember it failing - also, before i climaxed with either of the 3 CSW's, they promptly pulled away. In a sense, it shows that they too are concerned for their own health (i'm sure they have been tested, this occurred in a massage parlor and not some random girl off the street). The bottom line is my last encounter occurred on Sept. 2004. So here goes....

I recently had blood work done (CBC), the test was conducted at 10 am and my WBC came back at 4.9. Not bad, but not great. Other than that, my cholesterol was a little high. A little about my physique. Since 2001, I have gained a significant amount of weight. 155 - 220 (currently). Losing weight isn't that easy, haha. From 2004 - 2005 I smoked cigarettes but stopped promptly. I did smoke a couple of times in 2006/2007 but never around or during the tests.

So here I stand...In a dilemma. I love this girl you guys. She's my everything. If I were to tell her about my past, would she still be with me? Yes. However, if I don't, she'll feel much better about us. With that said, I'll spend everyday, for the rest of my life making sure she's taken care of and treated like a princess.

Should I go in and get a Quest Diagnostics full ELISA & W/B? PCR? Anything? I just went in for a physical, and the doctor seemed skeptical when I told him about taking the rapid tests. According to him, he didn't think they were worth any significance. Then again, he's not a specialist. Other than that, my physical came back great. Other than some minor Keratosis Pilari on my arm (according to him, it's normal) all is well.

You are conclusively hiv negative and you do NOT need further testing! You've used condoms since 2001 and condoms prevent hiv infection. You first tested in 2007 - SIX YEARS after your last risk. The window period is three MONTHS! You're good to go where hiv is concerned.

You might want to think about having a full STI panel done, because you might have other, more easily transmitted infections. Not all STIs have obvious symptoms. However, you do NOT need further hiv testing. You've already tested conclusively negative.

And by the way, I'm hiv positive but I'm also "ultra super duper clean" as I just got out of the shower a few minutes ago. It's highly insulting to use the term "clean" to describe the state of one's sexual health. Please don't use that term here again.

If you've read the Welcome Thread like you're supposed to, you will have read the following posting guideline:

Quote

Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to a four week Time Out (a temporary ban from the Forums). If you continue to post excessively after one Time Out, you may be given a second Time Out which will last eight weeks. There is no third Time Out - it is a permanent ban. The purpose of a Time Out is to encourage you to seek the face-to-face help we cannot provide on this forum.

Please consider yourself warned. You are conclusively hiv negative and there's nothing more we can do for you here.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I went to get a physical today (first time since the 10th grade, I'm 22 now) and the doctor signed me up for a CBC, Cholesterol check and so forth...and once again, like a kick to the face from a horse, anxiety got the best of me.

According to the doctor, rapid tests ESPECIALLY oral ones are complete BS (his words). He said a 'real' HIV test is the ELISA + WB + PCR offered by Quest Diagnostics...He said I have a very high and real chance of being HIV poz over the years and probably received numerous false negatives for testing so late... In one hand, I'm thinking, OH SH*T....on the other hand I'm thinking...Should this guy even be allowed to practice? He can take his Stanford degree and shove it.....

I don't care what your doctor says. You are conclusively HIV negative period. No further testing for HIV is necessary.

Now as to doing a full panel to check for other STDs -- uh, we're supposed to take your protestations of love seriously for your forthcoming bride and you don't want to do those tests??!!! Take a breath, get real and get 'em done. You're probably going to come out all clear on them anyway, but there's nothing like removing any doubts.

HIV is not an issue for you. Pull up your socks and get the other stuff done. You don't have to feel brave. Just do it.

Hey all, just wanted to drop by and say thanks for all the support. I had a few add'l questions that maybe you guys could fill in. Recently I've been talking about HIV with some friends and it seems as if me and many others were in the same boat meaning just the mere thought of being at risk for HIV wasn't perceived as being a realistic possibility. Unfortunately, when you have a football coach teaching health/driver's ed in the same coach, the idea of HIV comes off as: "If you're not into MSM & IV Drugs then HIV is non-existent" hence my tests being 4 - 7 years POST exposure instead of 3 - 6 months. Unfortunately, for the majority of my friends (and their friends for that matter) unprotected vaginal intercourse carries a risk of pregnancy through the eyes of my peers. HIV is still a "yeah right, me? at risk? HA". I'm doing what I can to repay my efforts you guys put forth towards helping me through this ideal to encourage testing. As we all know, knowledge is power.

I had a question pertaining to the window period and hopefully someone in HIV research can answer. We all know about the CDC's recommended guidelines of when a test is conclusive/definitive. Here's where my confusion stems from, if "Testing at 3 months is conclusive for > 99% of the population" - then what does that make for us who fall way outside the window period? At what point does the body stop producing a detectable amount of antibodies. I know that when 3 months rolls around, the body produces a HUGE abundance of antibodies in response to the virus. But what about if the virus becomes dormant? Does the body stop producing antibodies? How do we know our immune systems are up to par when it comes to producing antibodies? Is a test at 5 years post exposure more conclusive than a 3 month test - and if so, then why?

Also, one thing that always puzzled me. Rapid tests have a HIGH specifity implying a low low low rate of false positives...however they have a lower rate of sensitivity implying a greater margin for false-negatives...I'd personally be more worried about a false-negative than a false-positive. I guess what I'm getting at is, I firmly believe that the WB test should be mandatory to confirm a negative test. The risk of receiving a false-negative seems too real.

The body has to be severely immunocompromised before it would be slow in creating hiv antibodies. Such people include those on chemotherapy for cancer or on anti-rejection drugs following organ transplant, or those who have been injecting street drugs, every day, for YEARS.

A three month test and a five year test are equally as conclusive. And put it this way, if your immune system wasn't "up to par when it comes to producing antibodies", you and your doctor would certainly know about it because you'd be very ill indeed. We're talking hospital-bed-ill here, not man-flu-ill.

The virus never goes "dormant", what happens is some people's bodies do an excellent job of keeping the virus in check - sometimes for well over ten years. The only hiv positive persons who have been shown to stop producing antibodies were people who were at death's door with an opportunistic infection after having the virus for many, many years.

A negative test result at or outside the window period is conclusive and there is no need for WB testing on a negative result at or outside the window period.

All you really need to be telling your friends is what I told you in reply #20. ANYONE who has unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse with a person they have not tested together with is putting themselves at risk for hiv infection. It's not who you do, it's how you do it. Wrap it up and avoid hiv infection. It really is that simple.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Last question, I promise. It's really more of a concern. On my CBC sheet, it shows my Gobulin level at 2.2 (Normal: 2.1 - 3.7), or the lower side of normal. Being low, my question is, would this generally be significant enough to throw a false negative? I've spoken to an HIV specialist and according to him, if you have low Globulin levels (Hypogammaglobulinemia) it will in deed throw a false negative because your body isn't producing a proper amount of antibodies of IgM's or better yet, the same antibodies picked up through Elisa (EIA antibody) tests. Even Dr.Bob said that if you suffer from such things, an HIV PCR RNA test is required. Does anyone here have any info pertaining to this? My wbc continues to fall ever so slightly yet my lymphocytes remain high.

By the way, the only reason I'm bringing this up is because the doctor had brought the subject up and I'm just asking the community for their opinion. As far as my negative result, I believe in it mainly because of the scientific background, my overall health, and most importantly, you guys so please don't look at this as a desperate attempt to get reassurance, because it isn't, but I do value your opinions and that is why I posted it.

A report by Public Health -- Seattle and King County in Washington state has found that testing with OraSure Technologies' OraQuick test provides less accurate results than the label claims, Bloomberg reports. The OraQuick test is the only rapid test licensed to screen both oral fluids and blood for HIV, according to Bloomberg. Bob Wood, director of the HIV/AIDS control program at the Seattle-based department, said that in 5,460 tests, OraQuick failed to detect at least 8% of 133 people found to be HIV-positive with a non-rapid diagnostic. This compared with the 0.7% rate given on the test's label.

Elliot Cowan, chief of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Office of Blood Research and Review, said the agency has asked OraSure to investigate the issue. "We're keeping an ear to the phone and making sure they're doing what they're supposed to do," Cowan said, adding, "The ultimate goal is that the package insert appropriately represents the performance of the test." According to Bloomberg, CDC, which recommends testing with blood over oral fluids, also has contacted Seattle officials. Nonetheless, the agency sent a letter to physicians on Aug. 20, voicing support for oral fluid HIV testing and stating that the test has performed well "overall" and is important for increasing the number of people tested for HIV. Richard Wolitski, acting director of CDC's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, said, "At this time, based on all the available data, we're not changing our recommendations regarding oral fluid rapid testing."

OraSure Chief Science Officer Stephen Lee said the company tracks the performance of its test and routinely investigates complaints. Lee also said OraSure keeps FDA informed of all the product information it gathers. "All the data that we've accumulated indicates the product continues to perform according to its FDA-approved claims," Lee said.

Wood said that the department has sent its data to physicians and clinics in the area along with a recommendation to test blood rather than oral fluids when possible. "Our recommendation is that people shouldn't use rapid oral tests if they can avoid it, but there are some situations where it can't be avoided and it's better than nothing," Wood said.

According to Wood, Seattle in 2003 began back-up testing of samples screened with OraQuick. A laboratory test, called EIA, showed that OraQuick missed 10 out of 133 patients with HIV antibodies in their blood. Lee said that studies have shown rapid tests to be less sensitive than lab antibody tests, adding that other rapid tests have produced similar results. Seattle officials also tested the samples with a more accurate test that looks for HIV's genetic material. The test can detect more HIV cases because the virus appears in blood before antibodies, according to Bloomberg. When compared with the RNA test, OraQuick missed 17% of cases, according to Wood, who added that the results might be published in a journal in the future (Lauerman, Bloomberg, 9/3).

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Wow...this sucks. I've been tested with the Uni-Gold Recombigen HIV-1 test once over at PP. Unfortunately, I explained to the nurse that I've tested negative numerous times with other tests. She showed me the test with the results and I clearly remember just a solid control line being present, however I don't remember if the blood dot at the bottom of the test was solid or partial.

I knew it. I knew the whole Oral deal was too good to be true. IMO, they need to test you twice with a rapid or EIA blood sample and then do a WB to get a close to 100% accurate result. Maybe its time to go back to the 6 month window period.

You've been tested endlessly and you always test negative because YOU DON'T HAVE HIV. You're not special or clinically remarkable, you're just an ordinary, unremarkable little man who doesn't have HIV.

As for you remembering clearly a control line being present, I don't believe a word of it nor does anyone else. You're either lying or deluded.

Whatever is going on, it's about time you stopped bothering us with it. Nobody here cares about you or your mind numbing and banal problems.

If it can only be that easy. Do you know how hard it is to tell my wife: "The HIV tests I took back in 2007 is being questioned...after all this unprotected sex we had, it's really not biggie, let me go on down to get a blood test. No worries". It's not that easy Ann.

I don't want to drag this subject matter out, however I think it's important to note that one minute, everyone is putting their full confidence behind the FDA by trusting the test. IMO, to go home thinking your positive is less detrimental to society than thinking your negative and really being positive. I don't want to have a PCR test done - mainly because I cant afford it. PlannedParenthood offers anonymous testing using the UniGold rapid testing system (which I had back in 2008 and was negative) but charges close to $300. I don't have health insurance so I can't go to my Dr's office and have it done. And if it were to come back positive then obtaining health insurance would surely be a B****. I don't mean to ramble on, but I'm sure many others like myself are feeling the frustration over this whole Oraquick issue. BTW, I read a post by Dr.HHH on medhelp stating (since the test was done at his clinic) that the test flaws were also present in blood samples. I'd rather have a million false positives than a false negative. Thanks for everyones opinion and time.

I did have a UNIGOLD test done. But even then, I figured 1) I told the nurse that I already have had 2 negative Oraquick tests, 2) I do remember seeing the control line then going numb (in a good way). I don't remember seeing the first control red spot indicating a proper sample was added - either way she said she is 100% sure I'm negative. Either way, it was a rapid test. And though Oraquick claims 99.3% sensitivity with oral fluid - who knows how far fetch that figure is. Either way, I could a) have another rapid Unigold test done, or b) not have sex until I get health insurance and have a test done through Quest diagnostics.